Gigantic XD weight/height ratio

[*zeo]

I admit that I've had little practice in 'dumbing down' the science, but the concepts you are tackling are not simple. It is rocket science. Come to think of it, compared to some of the things you tackle on this board, rocket science is relatively easy. Sometimes the honest answer isn't simple.

Oh, don't sell yourself so short. If Alan Alda (hardly a rocket scientist) can host Scientific America and make these things sound laymen surely you could manage?

That's not nearly satisfactory. Define what an "energy siphon" is and how it's supposed to accomplish (1). Simply saying "energy siphon" is like simply saying "Santa Claus" or "Abracadabra."

Remember, laymen!!! You're not doing your argument any justice if the points you are making can't be understood by all.

Doesn't work. You'd have to add electrons to the atoms to keep them neutral, otherwise, you get the world's biggest tesla coil. However, the increasing the number of electrons in an atom changes chemical behavior, which you're trying to keep the same. Also, the extra charge pulls electron orbits in, so the Exceed will shrink. So you need to boost the electrons back to the orbit with more energy, which makes keeping them there tougher.

Here's the thing, Ryuki's theory is most closely related to the concept presented in the movie, "Honey, I Blew Up the Kid!"

Which was based on the concept that atoms are mostly empty space and by adjusting the empty space you could change the size of an object. This of course doesn't address the mass issue as this would only result in a ballooning effect. But one of the things all the theories have in common is the use of energy drawn in from the Boost Dimension, which depending on which theory you are addressing here is taken for granted to explain how it all fits.

Ryuki's personal theory for example tries to explain it by carefully manipulating the universal constants and using the infused energy to both explain the increased mass, lack of extra mass for density, and the proportional scaling of abilities.

The key thing he suggested to make that idea possible was that the body of the Exceed was channeling dimensionally manipulative energy fields (Gravity and EM) to control the interactions and make the whole thing stable.

In a way this is similar to YoungGuyver's dimensional shift, essentially assuming the Guyver technology is so advance that it can make this work despite all the things I'm sure you can think of going against it.

Now this is where you have to come half way, the ideas may be counter intuitive to your scientific train of thought but if you really think about it there are ways to adapt the idea to make it somewhat more feasable, albiet it may take you awhile to see how. You still have to at least try to see it from another viewpoint before outright dismissing it since you are dealing with laymen and not fellow engineers or scientists.

Really, think of it like anger management. Count to ten and let your mind wonder and consider other ways it could possible work. Cause right now your method is to hammer them into the ground mercilessly and then light them on fire, now imagine how that feels?

9. Why do you assume that the ablity to create an energy barrier confers the ability to control stimulated emission?

Again, laymen, remember the closest thing to science most on this board know about is from TV programs like Star Trek.

Though technically speaking containment fields are possible, like magentic bottles, etc. but I already pointed out they would have to be very powerful and the slightest breach could be disasterous.

(PS, magnetism and incandecence are both electromagnetic effects, too. Doesn't mean I can pick up a paperclip with a light-bulb.)

Depends on the light bulb Also environment, even light can be used to manipulat objects in zero gravity and scientist do use lasers to manipulate individual atoms. You really have to start thinking outside the box, we're not dealing with conventional subject matters after all.

Neutrons are particles, which have energy. Remember the dirty little secret of physics. Plus if you're going to use the word, please make sure you're using it correctly. Anyway...

Sorry but that's just insulting, doesn't matter if you're right or not if you insult someone for not doing something to your standards. Again I emphasis your audience are mostly laymen!

Besides you're missing the dirty little secret of physics. Energy is just the ability to do work, everything from a quantum erg to the universe is just an expression of energy. Matter itself is just a form of energy.

So what you should have said was point out that on a small enough scale matter and energy are the same thing and just the form it takes are different. The term Energy is really just a generic description. Don't you think this explanation could have avoided quite a bit of argument when you show there is overlap?

You mean you don't have a problem with enough energy to destroy the Earth crammed into each cubic meter of the Guyver?

I'll just point out pretty much everyone thought the Exceed was insane to begin with.

If the Exceed's flesh could withstand that kind of punishment, why doesn't it laugh off Kahn's pitiful little drill missles that aren't even a kiloton each?

Really? You did the math for their explosive yield already?

Mind you even a MOAB will perhaps leave a two feet wide by a foot deep crater after exploding over open ground, while Khan's Bio-Missiles decimated pretty much everything they hit, easily taking out whole city blocks with every strike and leaving nothing behind... Still think they aren't even a kiloton each?

I think we can all be a little more open minded here, right?

[Guest Wyrm]

Remember, laymen!!! You're not doing your argument any justice if the points you are making can't be understood by all.

Precisely, which is why Ryuki's response, "energy siphon," was not an explanation of anything. To me, it is an empty phrase and did nothing to explain how the electron's orbits remain bloated. Don't assume that because it has a scientific-sounding word that the phrase is scientific. It's not. No field defines "energy siphon", so I wanted to know what it was and how it worked.

This works both ways, you know.

Here's the thing, Ryuki's theory is most closely related to the concept presented in the movie, "Honey, I Blew Up the Kid!"

Which was based on the concept that atoms are mostly empty space and by adjusting the empty space you could change the size of an object. This of course doesn't address the mass issue as this would only result in a ballooning effect. But one of the things all the theories have in common is the use of energy drawn in from the Boost Dimension, which depending on which theory you are addressing here is taken for granted to explain how it all fits.

Ryuki's personal theory for example tries to explain it by carefully manipulating the universal constants and using the infused energy to both explain the increased mass, lack of extra mass for density, and the proportional scaling of abilities.

The key thing he suggested to make that idea possible was that the body of the Exceed was channeling dimensionally manipulative energy fields (Gravity and EM) to control the interactions and make the whole thing stable.

In a way this is similar to YoungGuyver's dimensional shift, essentially assuming the Guyver technology is so advance that it can make this work despite all the things I'm sure you can think of going against it.

So you're waving your hands to make all the inconvenient predictions and problems of your own 'theories' go away. Sci-fi buffs have a name for that: "handwavium". The "Honey, I Blew Up the Kid!" thing works is because the writers dab on a generous glob of this stuff. They are asking you to ignore the inconveient real physical consequences of what you see, or real problems with the explanation as presented, and just enjoy the show as-is.

That's fine for entertainment, but not for explanation. If I claimed seriously that the Exceed were inflated by invisible pixies breathing into a valve on the back of Gigantic's neck, or the fury of the dead souls of the Zoanoids Kahn had consumed filling Gigantic, you would've asked if I was nuts. If I defended that 'theory' by explaining that the magical properties of pixies or souls are so mysterious and powerful that they would work dispite everything you can think of going against it, you would complain that I was just being ridiculous. If I crowed that I had indeed discovered something important about Takaya's world, you would just say that I was making things up.

And this is exactly what you're doing. You've stopped explaining things in the Guyver universe and started just making stuff up about it. The only real difference between pixies and atoms is that there is evidence for atoms, none for pixies. You can claim Creator overtechnology could overcome any physical argument I could think of, but without evidence, it has about as much support as the Greek theory that lightning was due to Zeus throwing thunderbolts. Look how long humanity spent wallowing around mired in myth and legend. Only when we adopted the view that the way to decide between good ideas and bad ideas was evidence did we extract ourselves from the muck and take off. Computers, modern agriculture, clean water, medicine, prediction of major storms, modern communications — all children of that powerful view. There is absolutely no comparison between ideas borne from pure imagination verses those borne from the process of science. You wouldn't even have the time to waste arguing about flights of fancy like the Guyver if it weren't for the truly useful ideas from science making your life easy.

This is why science impresses me and why I always wanted to be a part of it when I was little. There is no better way to find out about anything. It even works with Star Wars and Star Trek. I was thrilled to discover the "Guyver Science Lab", until I found out there wasn't any actual science going on here. You aren't really interested in explanations of anything, only your cool ideas. Fine. You may have your flights of fancy as long as you don't pretend they have anything to do with Takaya's world. Or the real one. In exchange, I won't make a peep about them.

Now this is where you have to come half way, the ideas may be counter intuitive to your scientific train of thought but if you really think about it there are ways to adapt the idea to make it somewhat more feasable, albiet it may take you awhile to see how. You still have to at least try to see it from another viewpoint before outright dismissing it since you are dealing with laymen and not fellow engineers or scientists.

Really, think of it like anger management. Count to ten and let your mind wonder and consider other ways it could possible work. Cause right now your method is to hammer them into the ground mercilessly and then light them on fire, now imagine how that feels?

I've had plenty of my ideas swatted down by my peers, zeo. I know the feeling better than anything you've ever experienced. If the explanation is clear, then I feel foolish for even thinking of the idea in the first place, and "Good riddence!" is my only response. It only hurts if you're emotinally attached to them. But an idea is no substitute for the comfort and companionship of a human being, and an idea's only worth is in its usefulness. It's silly to become emotional about them, even your own. And yes, most of your ideas will be horrible.

A real theory does all have to hang together. That's why the search for the Theory of Everything is taking so long: it really does have to explain EVERYTHING. I wouldn't be surprised if we still don't have a clear winner after even a few more decades of searching. It's also why we rely so much on previous knowledge and peer review puplications, so that new thinking has a fighting chance of being correct and to get as many minds working on it as possible.

Ryuki's 'theory' cannot be fixed but by applying liberal amounts of handwavium. He is bludgeoning nature to behave the way he wants, dictating (as it were) that physics has to be such that it all works out, and woe to anybody who says differently. That one was me, who pointed out the some of the more obvious implications of the theory.

If it were a discussion about a fanfiction, he could simply handwave all those difficulties away and simply write the tale he wants, and I'd be in no position to complain, but could only advise that it could only soften the sci-fi element of Guyver. But it isn't — it's an explanation of how the Exceed does things in the regular manga. If we were allowed to use our own personal physics, in exactly what way has it added to our knowledge of Takaya's world? I use real physics, adding the observations we see in Guyver, because at least then there is a standard against which we can measure our ideas.

The principle argument against "more atoms" is that simply scaling up a creature from its normal size causes problems with biology that become crippling with normal creatures. But I noticed that scaling down is much kinder to creatures; they tend to be more than capable of handling a smaller size, with most real problems boiling down to energy intake. It therefore comes as a surprise no one thought that maybe it isn't the Gigantic size that the Gigantic is adapted to, but the Exceed. That is, it isn't so much that Exceed a scaled-up Gigantic, but rather a Gigantic is a scaled-down Exceed. It's the Exceed's size that constrains the Gigantic's biology.

Furthermore, Ryuki's "expanded atoms" spends a lot of time dreaming up a 'theory' that, at the end of the day, ends up in exactly the same place "more atoms" does with a lot less clutter. Remember, "expanded atoms" keeps the behavior of the atoms the same so the chemistry's the same, but that same behavior also keeps the physics the same, including materials strength and density — both of these properties are measured on a per-unit basis. It explains nothing of the proportional scaling of abilities you alude to. "Expanded atoms" still needs to summon 7000x the Gigantic's mass, just like "more atoms." Maybe "more atoms" just isn't fanciful enough.

And before you go off about strength and density, bones become stronger (that is, able to bear more load) when the cortical bone becomes thicker, which has the side-effect of making the bone denser on average — but any statistician can tell you that an average value tells you very little. The analysis of thick pipes (which a bone approximates) is a basic engineering problem, not some inscrutible biological mystery — the bone's strength comes from its structure. Wolff's law is a law of biological adaptation, not some amazing relationship between density and strength privy only to medical professionals. Science is based on openness, and useful knowledge is transmitted from field to field. Textbooks teach subjects that are relevant, not because the field somehow owns them — if a material's yield strength/point bore any relationship to its density, it would be mentioned in engineering textbooks, no matter where it came from.

What's left? Ah, yes, changing constants. In response for my request to name an article in the peer review literature about changing constants, you responded with the name of a journal and vague mumblings about how eminent scientists were thinking about changing constants. You try this stunt in any class I would teach and I'd fail you on the spot. When someone asks for an article, especially specifically from the peer review literature, he wants a citation of the article — a way of finding that article in the peer review literature. He does NOT want a journal name and vague mumblings. Until the idea of changing constants shows up as peer-reviewed articles establishing it, it's still vague mumblings no matter how many eminent scientists mumble about it.

And yes, physicists are looking for evidence of changing constants, either by way of direct experiment or by coming up with theories of everything. However, the distance, time and energy scales this happens are cosmic: billions of light years, billions of years, or energy scales that makes making real black holes (let alone fake ones) absolutely trivial. They are irrelevant to Exceed.

Further, the only reason we can contemplate changing constants is because the domain of the changes are safely in the past or far away. To expect that you can diddle with the constants of nature to achieve a specific effect and survive the experience is like trying to change but a few of trillions of figures spit out by a machine with twenty-five knobs and not affect the rest, when you know that all the knobs play a part in determining each figure.

The machine, of course, is the Standard Model, with its (now) 25 independent parameters, and physicists are currently looking for a more comprehensive theory that seeks to generate the Standard Model with fewer (or even no) constants, so this is not going to get any better. Maybe the Creators could figure it out with their expansive knowledge (in which case, how they missed that little detail is unknown)... or they just found an easier way to do it.

Again, laymen, remember the closest thing to science most on this board know about is from TV programs like Star Trek.

Though technically speaking containment fields are possible, like magentic bottles, etc. but I already pointed out they would have to be very powerful and the slightest breach could be disasterous.

All the science you know is from TV, not even high school? Then I shouldn't really be surprised by the quality of the science here.

Yes, the slightest breech will be disasterous, but what you don't grasp is your barrier is already breeched; your barrier is full of holes. Indeed, your barrier is mostly holes, due to the fact that the barrier operates on the quantum scale, so quantum mechanics applies to it too. Such a barrier will consist of particles buzzing about the nucleus interacting with radiation particles. But there is always some small probability that the radiation particle will zip right through the barrier and not interact with anything, and with the bubble you're cordoning off so small, there will be many, many opportunities for that to happen (~10²³ per second). Magnetic bottles work because they are much larger than atoms, and they act over the entire space to be cordoned off, measured in cubic meters not cubic femtometers. Even then the containment rate isn't all that good — if it were, commercial fusion power would be a reality by now. A rough estimate of the 'height' of the barrier required is about ~10⁵⁹ times the Coulomb barrier that surrounds a normal nucleus.

Those particles really don't want to stay there. It's the reason why getting them in there takes supernova-level energy density; the nuclei don't want the extra nuclei so the absorbtion rate is lousy — the most likely result of a hit is a bounce. Also, that good barrier you put up around the nucleus to keep it blowing up is just as good at keeping the neutrons out as keeping them in, as an entry is just a time-reversed escape, so the probabilities of both are the same.

It seems at every turn, nature is fighting you. Perhaps instead of thinking of a way to force the neutrons to stay tehre, we should be thinking of a way to make them want to stay there. As they say, it's easier to attract fies with honey than with vinegar. If there were an exotic particle that lowers the nuclear binding energy of neutrons in the nucleus (binding energies are negative), then added neutrons are at lower energy than they are free, so they stay where they are in a stable state — no shield needed, and goodbye all the problems it causes. Also, because they are at lower energy in that situation, they are more readily absorbed into the nuclei and lowers the energy requirements of putting those massive atoms together, solving the supernova energy problem. The problem is finding such a particle, to which sci-fi buffs have another word: "unobtanium", you can't get it, but if you had it, you could do it. The handwavium involved in points 5 and 6 are reduced or eliminated. The only other problem is a truckload of gammas, an estimated 10³³ gammas of 1.29355 MeV, or 344 megatons. However, that will all have to be paid back anyway when the atoms are broken up again, so we may put it into storage — plus 344 megatons is a lot easier to swallow.

Depends on the light bulb Also environment, even light can be used to manipulat objects in zero gravity and scientist do use lasers to manipulate individual atoms. You really have to start thinking outside the box, we're not dealing with conventional subject matters after all.

The theory of light tweezers at least has a physical explanation. But if I was a Gigantic and had a stimulated emission inhibitor — that is a LASER INHIBITOR, I'd use it against bio-blasters! I'd run up to Vamores, tweak their noses, and then blow 'em away! How's that for thinking outside the box?

Sorry but that's just insulting, doesn't matter if you're right or not if you insult someone for not doing something to your standards. Again I emphasis your audience are mostly laymen!

Informing someone is an "insult" now? Weren't you trying to inform me about your own theory just a while back by answering my questions? Then you bite my head off for returning the favor in regards to a piece of real physics?

Ignorance is one thing. Nobody is born with knowledge, and I do not hold mere lack of knowledge against someone. But refusal to even be corrected? That's something to be ashamed of.

Besides you're missing the dirty little secret of physics. Energy is just the ability to do work, everything from a quantum erg to the universe is just an expression of energy. Matter itself is just a form of energy.

So what you should have said was point out that on a small enough scale matter and energy are the same thing and just the form it takes are different. The term Energy is really just a generic description. Don't you think this explanation could have avoided quite a bit of argument when you show there is overlap?

You are the only one blowing a simple correction up into an insult. The fact is, anyone who's seriously studied relativity knows that the equivalence talked about in E=mc² is "Mass-Energy equivalence". We sometimes let the phrase be mutated to "Matter-Energy equivalence", because we often use 'matter' and 'mass' interchangably without confusion. But there is no "neutron-energy equivalence", because unlike matter which is somewhat synonymous with mass, neutrons name a specific kind of particle and is unambiguously 'stuff'. Energy, on the other hand, is a number associated with that stuff in some way. The free neutron has a mass with the equivalent energy to 939.5 MeV, but it's a long way from saying that the 939.5 MeV energy is that neutron, because there can be a gamma photon with the same energy content. Furthermore, the mass (and therefore energy) of a neutron is variable, because the binding energy of that neutron in an atom counts as negative energy. Therefore, to say the neutrons (or any other particle) are energy is inaccurate at best.

The "dirty little secret" of physics is that energy is a number. Mass-energy equivalence has been out for a while now, and so hardly counts as a secret, let alone a dirty one.

I'll just point out pretty much everyone thought the Exceed was insane to begin with.

AGREED!!

Really? You did the math for their explosive yield already?

Mind you even a MOAB will perhaps leave a two feet wide by a foot deep crater after exploding over open ground, while Khan's Bio-Missiles decimated pretty much everything they hit, easily taking out whole city blocks with every strike and leaving nothing behind... Still think they aren't even a kiloton each?

Yes. The MAOB's blast yield is only 11 tons, zeo. Further, I can think of a dozen different reasons why a MOAB can only cause a little crater over open ground, yet Kahn's bombs devistate city blocks. At the top of my list is the fact that the MOAB was detonated over open ground. The only way for the energy to show up is if there is displaced dirt — dirt is harder to move than you think. Also, there is a lot of space for that energy to escape to without leaving a trace. Do you really think the military would commission a bomb so big that did so little apparant damage? They obviously expect it to be quite a bit more effective against real targets.

The MOAB's blast radius is approximately 150 meters, but such a specification is incomplete (we also need overpressure at that radius). However, one kiloton would have the same blast effect of a MOAB at approximately 1.4 kilometers. A kiloton bomb would release a significant shockwave, zeo, and cause devistation for miles. A kiloton device would have brought down the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building next to it, less than 100 meters away, on page 80, yet it's still intact five pages later. And on the same page the windows of Cloud Gate wasn't blown out (any blast that would blow out the windows would shatter every light bulb in the place). The building Asou and Tokiwadaira were on were surrounded by maybe 200 meters of devistation. Not a kiloton. A respectible fraction thereof, but not a full kiloton.

Besides, even if Draglord's missles were as powerful as the Tsar Bomba, it STILL doesn't hold a match to four million trillion times the world's nuclear arsenel. Per second. (That arsenel calculated to be some 400 thousand megatons.) In comparison, the dinokiller was only 200 times the world nuclear arsinal. The essence of my argument would not change. The kind of damage the Exceed would cause (and endure) had he the energy density of a supernova would sterilize the entire Earth with the sheer force of his awesomeness.

I think we can all be a little more open minded here, right?

I have been open minded. I gave your arguments serious consideration. But being open minded doesn't mean you let your brains fall out... that you accept every idea that comes in unquestioningly. "Open minded" does not mean "gullible."

Anyway, I'm out of this forum. Cheers!

[*zeo]

"This works both ways, you know."

Only so much, fact is since you are the one who knows more then the burden of having it properly explained comes down to you. As laymen you can't really expect everyone to pose their theory to you in the proper manner all the time, remember it is easier for you to work with their ideas than it is for them to work with yours.

I tell you this from the perspective of someone who like you knows more about science than the average layman and who has had to deal with having to do a lot of the translating in these scientific discussions. So don't come complaining to me about having to dumb down your comments because frankly I've been doing it for a decade already and can tell you it never gets easier. Pretty much everything that has been said to you has been said to me.

"So you're waving your hands to make all the inconvenient predictions and problems of your own 'theories' go away."

No, but the point is not about convienance but about what could be possible. When dealing with alien technology far beyond our own then many things could become possible. We only have theoretical physics to judge how solid those possibilities could be but we also have to remember we are discussing a sci-fi subject and have to keep in mind what the creator of these characters may have thought was possible.

Really, I've already had really lively debates over the nature of the Pressure Cannon alone just because the new anime series came out with a new description of what it is suppose to be that differed from the VDF. All because of what the Creator of the series may have thought his creation was really doing versus what science would have us believe and what the creator may have originally intended or been motivated by.

So sometimes you do have to deal with "handwavium" but just to begin with. You can't just dismiss ideas because you know a dozen reasons why they shouldn't work. Cause as laymen the people here won't understand or even know your reasons. You have to lead them to the answer and show them step by step why an idea won't work or you'll just wind up insulting them if you don't give the discussion enough time.

I'd also appreciate it if you stop lumping everyone together, we each have our own ideas and frankly you've yet to make a single point about my theory. So unless you really see something wrong with it then stop lumping us all together and be more specific as to which theory is giving you the most problems. Really, you haven't even come out with a viable alternative theory yet, everything you have said so far has just been to poke holes in other peoples ideas without anything constructive to put in their place.

"If I claimed seriously that the Exceed were inflated by invisible pixies breathing into a valve on the back of Gigantic's neck, or the fury of the dead souls of the Zoanoids Kahn had consumed filling Gigantic, you would've asked if I was nuts. If I defended that 'theory' by explaining that the magical properties of pixies or souls are so mysterious and powerful that they would work dispite everything you can think of going against it, you would complain that I was just being ridiculous. If I crowed that I had indeed discovered something important about Takaya's world, you would just say that I was making things up."

If this was a serious scientific discussion then yes, you are right but this isn't a serious scientific discussion and frankly if you really knew as much about science as you think you do then you could just fill in the gaps to their theory and either suggest a way it could work or show them examples to show them why it wouldn't. The best test of knowledge is the ability to explain something to someone who doesn't have that knowledge!

"but without evidence,"

This is a key point, we often have to discuss things without enough evidence. Fact is since this is a Manga we are discussing that evidence will always be in short supply. We only have logic and ultimately assumptions to go by to come to any conclusions. Even on sites like Stardestroyer.net they deal a lot with assumptions and personal bias on how things should work.

"There is absolutely no comparison between ideas borne from pure imagination verses those borne from the process of science. You wouldn't even have the time to waste arguing about flights of fancy like the Guyver if it weren't for the truly useful ideas from science making your life easy."

This ignores the fact that many of the things borne out by science started out as an idea of imagination. It was imagination that inspired people to envision using rocketry to get into space, it was imagination that took ideas borne from science fiction and started to make them a reality (just look up how many technology was actually inspired by science fiction shows for example, cellphones for example). Without imagination we couldn't come up with new ideas to test with science.

Never mind the majority of the really important discoveries in history were pretty much all discovered by accident! So I really think you are missing the human factor and how our minds really work. Science is a tool, a very important tool but still just a tool. Without imagination then we would pretty much be just machines and machines aren't very creative.

"It even works with Star Wars and Star Trek. I was thrilled to discover the "Guyver Science Lab", until I found out there wasn't any actual science going on here. You aren't really interested in explanations of anything, only your cool ideas. Fine. You may have your flights of fancy as long as you don't pretend they have anything to do with Takaya's world. Or the real one. In exchange, I won't make a peep about them."

Sorry but you are only fooling yourself if you think we don't eventually get to actual science. The problem is you have no patients for the process in between and the fact is you're the one who is pretending if you really think your rules are the only ones that apply. Takaya is a manga artist, he's not a scientist!

Ask anyone here, I always try to put things into logical perspective but I respect the fact that real rules may not apply and that is pretty much the only thing you have to keep in mind.

"I've had plenty of my ideas swatted down by my peers, zeo. I know the feeling better than anything you've ever experienced."

Oh really? Sounds like you're making some assumptions about me now. . . Really, you know nothing about anyone on this site and yet you feel you know us better than ourselves. Hate to break it to you but everyone thinks they got it tougher than the other guy. But judging by your reaction to this forum I seriously doubt you've had to deal with as much peer rejection as I have, I've been at this for over a decade and like you I'm a strong believer in science but I know its place in this discussion and I know how to respect other peoples ideas even if I think they are wrong. End of the day we're talking fiction, we may play with ways it could fit into the real world but not everything in the Manga could ever be real.

"A real theory does all have to hang together. That's why the search for the Theory of Everything is taking so long: it really does have to explain EVERYTHING. I wouldn't be surprised if we still don't have a clear winner after even a few more decades of searching. It's also why we rely so much on previous knowledge and peer review puplications, so that new thinking has a fighting chance of being correct and to get as many minds working on it as possible."

I agree, but having a theory that works and convincing everyone it is the correct one is two different things. Try to think of it like politics, which frankly real scientist suffer from as well with all the BS they pull at least half of the time. But to the point you aren't dealing with people who have been scientifically trained, so you have to put things into ways they can understand.

Really, I'm one of the handful of people here who will understand everything you have stated. Course I'm kinda glad you joined because I've been trying to tell everyone they have got it easy and never had to argue a real science debate before

"Ryuki's 'theory' cannot be fixed but by applying liberal amounts of handwavium. He is bludgeoning nature to behave the way he wants, dictating (as it were) that physics has to be such that it all works out, and woe to anybody who says differently. That one was me, who pointed out the some of the more obvious implications of the theory."

Actually no, I already pretty much told Ryuki that his idea would have problems that would make it an unlikely explanation. You were just rude about it! Really, you haven't stated a single thing I hadn't already thought of but it is apparent you are either not flexible enough in your thinking to think out of the box for possible alternatives or just refuse to accept any idea that isn't established fact in some text book.

Your reaction to the idea that constants can change is already evidence of this, really try reading some real science research papers and stop dismissing any idea you don't like to popsci nonsense.

The principle argument against "more atoms" is that simply scaling up a creature from its normal size causes problems with biology that become crippling with normal creatures. But I noticed that scaling down is much kinder to creatures; they tend to be more than capable of handling a smaller size, with most real problems boiling down to energy intake. It therefore comes as a surprise no one thought that maybe it isn't the Gigantic size that the Gigantic is adapted to, but the Exceed. That is, it isn't so much that Exceed a scaled-up Gigantic, but rather a Gigantic is a scaled-down Exceed. It's the Exceed's size that constrains the Gigantic's biology.

Already thought of that and no, it wouldn't explain the proportional change in powers/abilities. There has to be something fundamentally different about the Gigantic's molecular makeup that makes the Exceed possible (which btw is part of my theory). The only thing we know for certain is the the energy infusion is enormous, the Exceed turns red, and the powers and abilities remain proportional.

The BMI gives us some idea of how advance this system has to be, since it works within the approximate same density despite having to deal with a vastly increased volume, and how important the energy infusion is to the whole process.

Furthermore, Ryuki's "expanded atoms" spends a lot of time dreaming up a 'theory' that, at the end of the day, ends up in exactly the same place "more atoms" does with a lot less clutter. Remember, "expanded atoms" keeps the behavior of the atoms the same so the chemistry's the same, but that same behavior also keeps the physics the same, including materials strength and density — both of these properties are measured on a per-unit basis. It explains nothing of the proportional scaling of abilities you alude to. "Expanded atoms" still needs to summon 7000x the Gigantic's mass, just like "more atoms." Maybe "more atoms" just isn't fanciful enough.

Incorrect, Ryuki's theory also calls for a manipulations of the constants, also the expanded Atoms would have far more surface area versus volume mass. The infused energy could for example take the form of a quantum level energy manifold field.

(If you are aware of some theories that explain dark matter as a quantum effect of the vacuum of space then this part would make more sense.)

The infused energy could thus be channeled to make the expansion stable and explain the mass difference to provide both the extra mass of the Exceed but with a far greater increase to surface area that would in turn explain the proportional increase in powers/abilities, the only real requirement that is hard to get around would be containment to prevent the altered constants from effecting the Exceed's surroundings and preventing the Exceed from reverting back to normal size. The slightest leak of which should be more than visible and is one the reasons I pointed out earlier to suggest the idea wasn't likely to be the case.

And before you go off about strength and density, bones become stronger (that is, able to bear more load) when the cortical bone becomes thicker, which has the side-effect of making the bone denser on average — but any statistician can tell you that an average value tells you very little. The analysis of thick pipes (which a bone approximates) is a basic engineering problem, not some inscrutible biological mystery — the bone's strength comes from its structure.

Fact is bone strength does come in large part due to its structure, a fact that wasn't always known until someone studied it at enough detail to figure it out, and it is only a mystery if you fail to realize this fact and only attribute bone strength to its material strength alone. There is also common sense, and common sense tells us the denser a material is the stronger it becomes, which also makes sense mathematically since denser means you have more surface area for a given area than you would otherwise have and the more surface area a support structure has versus volume means the stronger it will be. Course how things bond together is also a factor but density is one of the things that directly help to offset volume and is most effective when used in reinforcing a support structure. It is of course less effective when not used in conjuction with a support structure.

it would be mentioned in engineering textbooks, no matter where it came from.

You're assuming they would A) know and B) Apply something that effects biology to normal engineering. Fact is a lot of what we are learning about structures is new, we're still playing catchup to nature and have yet to make anything that works better than natural design. Not to mention most text books are still publishing information that is up to 30 years old and hasn't been updated yet. Really, unless you are keeping up with the latest research and discoveries then there would be a lot you wouldn't know about how what we know has changed in recent years. Like nothing in your text books would make it possible to build a conventional building over a mile in height yet recent discoveries are now being applied to such a task. A new building being build in Dubai is slated to be 1.55 miles tall when complete and uses a radical new spiral design that kinda makes it look like a giant nail pointed upward. But illustrates how how we build things is constantly evolving as we learn more of how structures behave and what works best.

Just look at how much research into super conductivity has changed our knowledge on how materials behave and the true nature of electricity in the last ten years alone. All of which hasn't trickled to text books yet as they take years to decades to be updated. At least for high school text books, universities are more up to date but unless you are studying at one who puts a lot of funds into science research then it will be doubtful you have the latest theories being discussed in class. Books cost money and most universities are bottom line on how they use their funds.

What's left? Ah, yes, changing constants. In response for my request to name an article in the peer review literature about changing constants, you responded with the name of a journal and vague mumblings about how eminent scientists were thinking about changing constants. You try this stunt in any class I would teach and I'd fail you on the spot. When someone asks for an article, especially specifically from the peer review literature, he wants a citation of the article — a way of finding that article in the peer review literature. He does NOT want a journal name and vague mumblings. Until the idea of changing constants shows up as peer-reviewed articles establishing it, it's still vague mumblings no matter how many eminent scientists mumble about it.

So you are too lazy to look for yourself, fine just say you are lazy. Excuse me for assuming you'll just look them up once I pointed out which publication presented them. Though mind you you'll need membership, like to http://www.aaas.org/, to read some of these articles in their entirety...

COSMOLOGY: Changing Constants Cause Controversy

Seife

Science 24 August 2001: 1410

DOI: 10.1126/science.293.5534.1410b

National Institute of Standards and Technology (2007, February 18). Clock Comparison Yields Clues To 'Constant' Change.

T.M. Fortier, N. Ashby, J.C. Bergquist, M.J. Delaney, S.A. Diddams, T.P. Heavner, L. Hollberg, W.M. Itano, S.R. Jefferts, K. Kim, F. Levi, L. Lorini, W.H. Oskay, T.E. Parker, J. Shirley and J.E. Stalnaker. Precision atomic spectroscopy for improved limits on variation of the fine structure constant and local position invariance. Physical Review Letters. Feb. 16, 2007.

N. Ashby, T. P. Heavner, S. R. Jefferts, T. E. Parker, A. G. Radnaev and Y. O. Dudin. Testing local position invariance with four cesium-fountain primary frequency standards and four NIST hydrogen masers. Physical Review Letters. Feb. 16, 2007.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (2006, April 29). Have Constants Of Nature Have Changed Since The Dawn Of The Universe?. E.R. Hudson, H.J. Lewandowski, B.C. Sawyer, and J.Ye. 2006. Cold molecule spectroscopy for constraining the evolution of the fine structure constant. Physical Review Letters. April 14 (Vol. 96, 143004).

Swedish Research Council (2006, June 9). Variable Physical Laws.

Cosmology: Black holes constrain varying constants; Nature 418, 602-603 (8 August 2002) | doi:10.1038/418602a

A Hemispherical Power Asymmetry from Inflation

DASI data support inflation theory

Cosmological Constants and Variations by John D. Barrow DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University, Cambridge CB3 OWA, UK

And there's plenty more, since they've been debating this off and on for the last several years. Fact is only now are we getting to the point that we can really test whether the constants are really constant. In fact one of the things they have slated for the Large Hadron Collider, once they get it back online next spring, to test are the universal constants, and whether they are at the values we have presently asigned them and whether they are changing over time. You have to remember the constants were established before we had a way to really test them with any reliable accuracy. So like the difference from Newtonian Physics to Einstonian Physics there may be some adjustment necessary in the finer details and those finer details may reveal things that we previously had not thought of before.

And yes, physicists are looking for evidence of changing constants, either by way of direct experiment or by coming up with theories of everything. However, the distance, time and energy scales this happens are cosmic: billions of light years, billions of years, or energy scales that makes making real black holes (let alone fake ones) absolutely trivial. They are irrelevant to Exceed.

Not if the same factors that could change the constants are applied to the Exceed for localized effect. Really, if you took anything away from Relativity is the fact that what effects one part of the universe doesn't have to effect all of the rest.

Further, the only reason we can contemplate changing constants is because the domain of the changes are safely in the past or far away. To expect that you can diddle with the constants of nature to achieve a specific effect and survive the experience is like trying to change but a few of trillions of figures spit out by a machine with twenty-five knobs and not affect the rest, when you know that all the knobs play a part in determining each figure.

It's actually an assumption that changing the constants from the established values would preclude the existence of life as we know it.

No one really bothered to test the idea until Fred Adams, a professor of the Physics Department Directory of the University of Michigan, who as a astrophysicsist with research centering on star formation, background radiation fields, and the early universe, has created a program that runs simulations of how the universe would turn out if the constants had different values. Though his research is still only in its infancy he has noted things in his computer model multiverse like ...

About a quarter of the resulting universes turned out to be populated by energy-generating stars. "You can change alpha or the gravitational constant by a factor of 100 and stars still form," Adams says, suggesting that stars can exist in universes in which at least some fundamental constants are wildly different than in our universe.

And really, you wouldn't have to change all the constants to make the Exceed possible or by that much. Even small changes can have big consequences but as the above research suggests something stable could still possibly come out despite the changes.

All the science you know is from TV, not even high school? Then I shouldn't really be surprised by the quality of the science here.

Again lumping everyone together again, sorry if it takes a sledge hammer to make you realize this but many on this board are still in their teens and science isn't even their major.

Me I'm 33 and know my real science from made up science quite well, the difference is I know I'm debating fiction and know that even if many of ideas thrown around here fall short of scientific standards that people learn more of real science if I just lead them to the more likely answer instead of hammering it. Yet even then many people here still think I'm arrogant and not everyone understands half of what I tell them and I use laymen examples left and right. So just imagine how they are viewing you now?

Yes, I would appreciate a higher level of debate but most real science forums don't debate fictional characters. So get over yourself!

If you want real science debate then open a topic for it, so only those on the board with real science knowledge will get involved. You're just asking for trouble the way you're going about this.

Yes, the slightest breech will be disasterous, but what you don't grasp is your barrier is already breeched

Uh, hello, I'm the one who pointed out there should be effects like aurora borrialis, etc. Or more obvious Aptom sticking to Exceed like a fly on flypaper, etc.

Have you really read all the previous posts or just skimmed through them because you have no tolerance for anything but exact science?

Besides, haven't you ever heard of quantum polarization? and other methods they are developing, like say for nano-technology that deals with minimizing such effects?

But to the point, yes there would be leaks but it's not impossible to keep them to a minimum, really (if you follow Stephen Hawking) then even black holes leak over time but it takes a really long time and doesn't stop the black hole from being a black hole. Though for me the existence of the leaks is enough to think the theory doesn't fit, which is what I've already stated. But that doesn't mean I don't see how the theory was remotely possible and that's all the point I'm making. These ideas aren't total nonsense if you just think about how science could be applied behind them to make it work. Like you I know more about science than they do so I fill in the gaps that I know they would have filled if they knew as much about science as I did. It's all part of trying to see it from their point of view and still keep to my beliefs in science and that's all I'm asking you to do, for the sake of respectful discorse if nothing else.

Those particles really don't want to stay there. It's the reason why getting them in there takes supernova-level energy density; the nuclei don't want the extra nuclei so the absorbtion rate is lousy — the most likely result of a hit is a bounce. Also, that good barrier you put up around the nucleus to keep it blowing up is just as good at keeping the neutrons out as keeping them in, as an entry is just a time-reversed escape, so the probabilities of both are the same.

Barriers can be one way, just look at the complex way our own cells work and how they keep some things out while allowing other things through. Really, even at normal size those particles don't want to stay there but the system remains in balance. But by changing the constants you can change where that balance is met and there in lies the rub. Again, I don't agree with this theory but I can see how it can work in theory.

You are exaggerating the energy levels needed though, that much energy would also add enormous mass, reminds me of a previous debate about gamma rays burst. Like how scientist originally couldn't imagine what would be powerful to create them but then realized the energy was all traveling in one direction, which vastly reduced the energy needed to produce them. Similarly properly focused energy could get the job done with a lot less than you've been calculating.

Really, all is needed is the high energy density but that's one part in the billion, billion, billions'th of the energy contained in a supernova. It's like saying fusion is impossible because it normally takes whole stars amount of mass to start the process but all you really need is the energy density and there are other ways to get it than just pressure and mass.

It seems at every turn, nature is fighting you. Perhaps instead of thinking of a way to force the neutrons to stay tehre, we should be thinking of a way to make them want to stay there. As they say, it's easier to attract fies with honey than with vinegar. If there were an exotic particle that lowers the nuclear binding energy of neutrons in the nucleus (binding energies are negative), then added neutrons are at lower energy than they are free, so they stay where they are in a stable state — no shield needed, and goodbye all the problems it causes.

Yes, and guess what, you just changed the value of a constant by introducing a particle that would change the effective value. Exotic particles are one way to go and ZPE effect from the energy siphon from the Boost Dimension could be a source for said Exotic particles.

But as a veteran of these debates I can tell you that exotic particles are pretty much a given, the pressure cannon alone requires them. Not to mention the worm hole (the blast field) that brings the unit from the boost dimension and into normal space requires such exotic particles to produce the negative energy you would need to make the worm hole stable enough to bring anything across. Really, this is thankfully one of the science concepts readily accepted in this forum. Enough so that we don't always mention it unless elaborating on how something works that requires exotic particles.

"The theory of light tweezers at least has a physical explanation. But if I was a Gigantic and had a stimulated emission inhibitor — that is a LASER INHIBITOR, I'd use it against bio-blasters! I'd run up to Vamores, tweak their noses, and then blow 'em away! How's that for thinking outside the box?"

Better, much better, but you're assuming the effect can extend far beyond the body... Also it's already a fact from official sources that the head beam infrared laser takes its energy from the internal body heat of the Guyver, just to give you some idea how much energy is bottled up even in the normal Guyver that can fire beams capable of vaporizing a bullet in mid-flight in a tiny fraction of a second and can kill most zoanoids who aren't highly heat resistant. While the Guyver itself is pretty much immune to the head beam and consequently any similar level of heat based weapon.

The Gigantic's main head beam is 5x the power of the normal Guyver, and the two adjacent emiters are both 1x, meaning thermal energy alone grants the Gigantic 7x times the energy of the normal Guyver without ever going into gravitational energy in which the Gigantic has three gravity control orbs and 12 power amp crystals.

But for comparison the head beam makes a good point because infrared lasers have limited range in atmosphere. So is more a close to medium range weapon and thus illustrates one of many possible reasons such an inhibitor effect, if it does exist, can't be used offensively.

Really, like the fact the human brain can produce about 25 watts of electricty doesn't mean we can use that energy offensively now does it? Even electric eels have limited range and they're specialized to use electricity offensively.

Besides such an effect probably requires the inhibitor to be applied in three dimensions and offensively doesn't really provide more than 2 dimensions to effect a given target.

"Informing someone is an "insult" now? Weren't you trying to inform me about your own theory just a while back by answering my questions? Then you bite my head off for returning the favor in regards to a piece of real physics?"

For one thing I haven't explained my theory to you. I've just argued for what you are clearly missing about everyone elses theories. Remember, you're the rookie here. I'm the resident science nerd of the forum for the last decade and I'm just trying to show you the ropes on how to deal with everyone else in this forum. And for the other, it's all how you say it and whether you actually bothered to entertain someone elses idea before shooting it down.

Me I always consider other viewpoints but even then I may not say enough to show I considered it. Really, about 90% of everything I think about never gets said cause I could literally write whole essays on these subjects and overly large posts is one of the things I've already pushed the limits on as is. This rely probably goes over said limit. The point I'm making to you is you have to try a lot harder with the people on this board. If it was just me you could go ahead as you have been but it's not just me here and that's the point you have to understand. If you expect to debate ideas here you have to allow for those who don't understand everything you say and change your debate style.

Like you said everything you have said would be valid in a real debate forum but most people here are just fans of the Guyver or anime/manga in general. It's not the place to hammer people with facts and expect they won't get insulted when you call them names and don't explain to them in a logical and respectful manner. The moment you insult them they block out everything else you may have said and just ignore you and you can't correct someone if they aren't listening to you anymore. Correcting is fine, but you have to do it respectfully.

"You are the only one blowing a simple correction up into an insult."

Hardly, there are quite a few people complaining about your attitude and you would have be pretty ignorant of proper forum decorum to think you haven't been insulting. Most general message boards, created by fans of a particular subject or two, would find your attitude very insulting.

Mind you despite your dismissal of any actual science going on here the fact is the very concept of the boost dimension is like comparing Euclidean space to Minkowski space, but you would have to explain it to an audience without any previous knowledge of Riemannian geometry, which is exasperated by the fact much of the concepts of higher dimensions can only be properly expressed mathematically. But all this is still just covering some of the basics for the more advanced subjects.

Ideas like branes are much easier to assimulate for the general public, especially with their present popularity due to all the publicity String Theory and now M-Theory has gotten and all the mainstream scientists who have given time to explain these concepts in laymen terms.

And then it can all break down to the Boost Dimension just having more dimensions than normal space and thus have a different ZPE default value that is much higher than ours because of those extra dimensions gives more room for the extra energy/matter to fill and thus the saturation point would be very different from our own universe. And could explain things like why the Guyver creates such a destructive blast field when calling the Unit but simply fades away when sending it back.

So it may not be that the boost dimension is simply an energy field void (though that remains a possibility, like what if the boost dimension is another universe with a different value between possitive and negative energy than our own and thus remains static or is a space between other dimensions/universes and thus is the go between for the all the net energy of the multiverse) but rather that the number of dimensions causes a net energy boost to anything entering a lower number of dimension universe such as our own. Like a 3 dimension object energy a 2 dimensional universe, what happens to the extra dimension?

This had been partly explored for black holes, after all it is an example of 3 dimensional matter falling into a singularity which is only 1 dimensional.

Though the Gigantic is described as charging while in the boost dimension so there could also be a net higher value of energy throughout the boost dimension that is caused by the higher number of dimensions. Or more likely the dimensional difference between the Gigantic and boost space is enough to cause an energy transfer to the Gigantic while in boost space from what would be basically a ZPE effect as the energy levels equalize for whatever the boost dimensions base levels are. Like the old saying goes nature abhors a vacuum, or more precisely an imbalance.

The Gravity Power Amps of the Gigantic all have to go full out to create the Exceed, so like the Gravity Control Orb they may each be interfacing with the Boost Dimension and translating the dimensional difference to induce a massive influx of energy and consequently mass to produce the Gigantic form.

My own theory suggests this energy is integrated into the molecular structure of the Gigantic, with the organism itself doing most of the work since it has shown it can handle boost energy on its own and thus must have a natural mechanism for both tapping and utilizing that energy, while cellular growth is kicked into overdrive for rapid size increase. The energy not used to increase mass then goes into reinforcing the structure and magnifying the power of the Gigantic at a rate at least equal to the volume increase and thus provides a proportional increase in abilities.

In part this may be explained if the Guyver Organism operates in more dimensions than we do, it would at the very least explain how it can tap the boost dimension on its own. The extra dimensions could then allow the organism to deal with energy and matter in ways normal materials could never do.

But if the dimensional shift ZPE factor I illustrated is what is happening then it would also explain why the organism is still parasitic and doesn't rely on boost energy to sustain itself, even though the Guyver shows this is possible and even removes the host digestive system because it doesn't need it while using the unit. The Gravity Control Orb could serve as an interface between the boost dimension and our own and thus the ZPE effect would become continuous but limited to the size of the interface, which answers the other question as to why it doesn't just overload the Guyver with energy if tapping into an energy filled universe if we an equalizing factor is what is causing the energy infusion.

But just to illustrate my point most on this board won't know what I'm really talking about, even though I kept it pretty strictly laymen and used a lot of terms associated with the manga and VDF.

"The "dirty little secret" of physics is that energy is a number. Mass-energy equivalence has been out for a while now, and so hardly counts as a secret, let alone a dirty one."

Really? And you think the fact that most people don't know the difference between energy and matter would make this common knowledge how?

Energy is a number because it is a concept. Do you understand the difference enough to appreciate why everyone doesn't understand the difference?

Yes E=MC^2 has been out for quite awhile but few outside of actual science circles know its true ramifications. To most energy is not just a concept but something physical like matter, which is why I tried to point out the best way to argue it is to show the overlap instead of just ramming peoples misconceptions into their face.

Established ideas and personal biases are hard to get around for anyone, you're not making it any easier for them by insulting them when they think they're right. Instead show what they are missing and why their assumptions may not be the complete picture.

Like you yourself have a lot of bias based on traditional science without much on theoretical when such discussions as we're now having is best dealt with theoretically. Since we are talking about something that would fall under theoretical at best.

"Yes. The MAOB's blast yield is only 11 tons, zeo. Further, I can think of a dozen different reasons why a MOAB can only cause a little crater over open ground, yet Kahn's bombs devistate city blocks. At the top of my list is the fact that the MOAB was detonated over open ground."

Oh, I'm well aware of the actual power of a MAOB, one of my hobbies is researching military weapons.

And what do you think the effect of the buildings on top of that ground would cause? Wouldn't it cause the missiles to detonate before they hit the ground? As well as buffer the blast as the building itself absorbed the energy? Do you even know how much energy it takes to flatten a whole city block?

To just knock the buildings down a kiloton can be used to destroy 11 city blocks but to completely destroy the buildings it could take a kiloton just to take out a single city block. And by what we saw beneath the Exceed afterward there wasn't much of anything left of those buildings.

You already mentioned Stardestroyer.net, really it's just like the asteroid destruction analysis. It takes far more energy to vaporize than to simply fragment.

Or just look at historical examples like the USS Arizona, during Pearl Harbor attack its ammo hold exploded with the force of around 1 kiloton. This was sufficient to quickly sink the ship but it was otherwise not blown to bits. So let's not go overestimating the power of a kiloton blast, it is indeed extremely powerful and can cause wide spread damage but we have to remember scale and relative effect. Not to mention the fact that explosive energy dissapates rapidly in the atmosphere, which is why most modern research into bombs have gone into making the pressure last longer (hyperbaric) than traditional bombs. Then to your next point...

"Do you really think the military would commission a bomb so big that did so little apparant damage? They obviously expect it to be quite a bit more effective against real targets."

Actually yes, the military does what works and what often works is psychological warfare. Take the Russuan FOAB for example, it's a primary gas based bomb that makes a really big bang but isn't all that effective in real warfare because of its vulnerability to wind factors and how much energy actually gets sent to the target as much of the explosion, like the gas, spreads upward. Btw, I get my opinions from talking with actual soldiers who tell me things like how the military has been known to dump perfectly good tanks into rivers because it was cheaper than shipping them back to the states. And the military has commissioned many weapons that never get used. The MOAB can be heard for many miles and that alone is very effective tool.

"A kiloton bomb would release a significant shockwave, zeo, and cause devistation for miles."

If released as a blast wave then yes but not if we're talking about a shape charge, even a one ton bomb can cause a building to collapse by blowing up next to it but a focused explosion can be confined to a specific area and the lack of damage to neighboring buildings should only prove that point. So then collateral would be far less and localized damage far greater. If it really was far less than a kiloton then we should see far more rubble, buildings don't just collapse flat and it does take far more energy than you'd think to completely pulverize a building. Even the collapse of the building should have caused collateral damage if you really want to point that out. So the blast that destroyed those building must have knocked them almost straight down before they could spread out and cause their own collateral damage.

Besides skyscrapers are pretty tough, though the world trade center buildings did collapse after just over an hour. They withstood the impact of a passenger airliner slamming into them at a significant percentage of the speed of sound and took over an hour of cooking under burning jet fuel, steel loses about 50% of its strength at 1100°F degrees (well within the temperature of burning jet fuel) and the addition of materials from the building itself easily increased it to 1832°F (which reduces steel strength to just 10%) before the structure finally weakened enough to collapse under its own weight and that was mainly because the outer skin of the building was its primary support structure and the fire had gotten to the elevator shafts so spread throughout the whole building structure.

Considering Khan's missile didn't cause any noticeable fires that most the buildings had to deal with was just pure force, which would easily spread to the other buildings as both the immediate blast zone of the target buildings and the atmosphere would have quickly dissipated the blast, thus helping to localize the damage but also helps shows how much energy it would take to completely destroy the buildings that were destroyed. Since we are talking about a modern city with lots of skyscraper size structures, many of which have been reinforced to withstand earthquakes considering it was a Japanese city and that area is prone to quakes.

Anyway, I'm out of this forum. Cheers!

Sorry if that means you're quiting, I guess all that talk about being able to take disagreement was just talk.

[*Jess♥]

Really, you haven't even come out with a viable alternative theory yet, everything you have said so far has just been to poke holes in other peoples ideas without anything constructive to put in their place.

this.

[*Jess♥]

i was watching farscape the other night and the characters got shrunk down in size.

they were talking about how it shouldn't be possible.. I thought it was a good parallel to this discussion.

if their atoms were shrunk, they wouldn't be able to breathe the air because the atoms would be too big. if they had less atoms, the body systems wouldn't work as effectively.

it's a good job guyver can be self contained!

i want to lay out some stuff.

when guyver turned into guyver gigantic, it took months of gestation in order to remodel the body.

in order to create a new body that is so much bigger, keep it the same shape and proportions, same effective desity... that seems pretty complicated if it has to restructure all hte body systems, make stronger fibres etc. so to me, it makes sense, that it just gets bigger.

the inner structure must be the same. the only way to have the inner structure the same is to have bigger atoms.

to be honest, I've tried to come up with some ideas as to how the atoms could be bigger. this doesn't seem satisfactory, I would appreciate some help with it.. but oh well. it's not my problem. I like my ideas.

i had another idea here.

our bodies size and structure is limited by the gravity of out planet.

this is the same as our ability to float up above the surface and float about at great speed... is limited by our gravity

guyver does this however.

it seems silly to me now when i consider that guyver has a great degree of control over gravity. surely guyver can allow himself to become big simply by manipulating a gravity field?

[*zeo]

Always liked Farscape... oh well, it will be missed...

the only way to have the inner structure the same is to have bigger atoms.

Depends what you are referring to by inner structure?

Most everything in the body can just grow bigger by having more cells in its makeup. You only need bigger atoms if you want to have the same number of atoms make up a given size object.

to be honest, I've tried to come up with some ideas as to how the atoms could be bigger. this doesn't seem satisfactory, I would appreciate some help with it.. but oh well. it's not my problem. I like my ideas.

One alternative is creating virtual particles through quantum entanglement. Like how scientists have managed to make multiple atoms act as one in experiments presently keyed to learn how to deal with quantum effects to eventually create a quantum computer. Theoretically this means you can get a group of atoms to link up and act like one large atom, the only problem is quantum effects are inherantly unstable but if we use a cloaking field (something that is also becoming a reality, though we are still limited to one spectrum at a time and mostly on small scale objects) then we can increase the uncertainty factor and thus allow much larger object to behave quantumly and thus make this a viable possibility. Basically imprinting the pattern of the Gigantic on a larger mass so it acts the same as the original but at a different scale. The quantum effects through ZPE could also draw up the exotic particles to make the physics all work to scale.

But this is also a incredibly complicated and unlikely to be pulled off any more than the previous explanation of altering constants and suffers from the same problem of leaks, though these leaks could be limited and channeled to specific forms of energy. Perhaps for example if Exceed's red color was actually a red glow it could be a sign of this leak.

i had another idea here.

our bodies size and structure is limited by the gravity of out planet.

this is the same as our ability to float up above the surface and float about at great speed... is limited by our gravity

guyver does this however.

it seems silly to me now when i consider that guyver has a great degree of control over gravity. surely guyver can allow himself to become big simply by manipulating a gravity field?

Still requires manipulating the constants and more than just gravity effects the body at that scale. Besides the Exceed can create a true black hole attack, unlike the virtual one the Zoalords have demonstrated this would require incredible levels of gravitational energy. Enough so that it is unlikely to both be able to provide that energy and still support itself at the same time.